K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of the petitioner's application under S. 24 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (for short 'the Code' ).

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this petition are these. The non-applicant Sureshkumar on 14-5-86, during summer vacation, filed the Civil Suit No. 66-A of 1986 in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Ratlam against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction claiming that in respect of the transport contract in his favour no other contract be given to any other person for a period of two years. On his application, an ex parte temporary injunction was granted on 14-5-86. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Shri Durve, 2nd Additional Judge to the District Judge, Ratlam.

( 3 ) NON-APPLICANT Sureshkumar was granted several adjournments in the appeal and it was ultimately on 14-8-86 that the learned Judge observing that jurisdiction in disposing of appeal against an ex parte order of temporary injunction is of a limited nature and the same can be challenged before the trial Court on merits, dismissed the appeal as also the petitioner's application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code.

( 4 ) WHILE disposing of the appeal, the learned Judge had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court on 25-8-86. After the aforesaid date the case suffered several adjourments at the instance of the non-applicant Sureshkumar and it was ultimately on 28-10-86 that the order granting ex parte temporary injunction was vacated.

( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dt. 28-10-86 the non-applicant Sureshkumar on 29-10-86 filed a Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of the said 2nd Additional Judge, Ratlam. The petitioner when called upon, put in appearance and at the very outset filed an application stating that he wants to apply for transfer of the appeal from that Court, but as the District Judge was on leave, he was unable to move such an application and in the circumstances he be granted a month's time for obtaining suitable orders.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the same day when the petitioner's learned counsel appeared in the case, he requested the Court to take up another pending appeal with the application under O. 39 of the Code and prayed for grant of time in the newly instituted appeal so that he could file reply and counter-affidavit. The learned counsel also informed the Court regarding the petitioner's intended move for transfer application as he had no hope of getting justice from the Court.

( 7 ) THE learned Judge instead of taking up the old appeal adjourned it and after hearing arguments in the new appeal, he ordered stay of the operation of the order passed by the Civil Judge whereby the ex parte order granting temporary injunction in favour of the non-applicant Sureshkumar had been vacated.

( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioner's learned counsel is that the learned presiding Judge despite having been informed that the petitioner wanted to move a transfer application, chose to pass the impugned order in hot-haste flouting the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has every reason to believe that he would not get justice at his hands. It is prayed that the impugned order dt. 29-10-86 passed by him be vacated and the appeal be transferred from his Court to any other competent Court.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicants contend that if a Court despite information of an intended transfer application proceeds to deal with the case and passes any order no stamp of invalidity can automatically be attached to such an order. According to them no valid ground for transfer of the appeal is made out by the petitioner and at any rate there is no warrant in law to interfere with the impugned order while dealing with a transfer application under S. 24 of the Code.

( 10 ) THE point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed.

( 11 ) A perusal of S. 24 of the Code shows that in the matter o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document